Ms. Shadan Akhtar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 20255 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ms. Shadan Akhtar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 31 May, 2024

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:42250
 
Court No. - 20
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2618 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Ms. Shadan Akhtar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And 7 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Pandey,Vittan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rishabh Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Shukla, additional chief standing counsel for the State and perused the record.

2. The matter is being decided at the admission stage as such notice to the opposite party no. 8 is hereby dispensed with.

3. Under challenge is that order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the Regional Level Committee whereby, the claim of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected.

4. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed by the Committee of Management on 30.06.1998 and she joined on 01.07.1998 and after successfully completing the tenure of service, she retired on 31.03.2022. He further submits that the Regional Level Committee without going through the record of appointment has passed the order dated 30.01.2024 and it is apparent that there is non-application of mind.

5. After the aforesaid arguments, he submits that in fact the controversy has already been settled in the judgment and order passed by this Court on 31.05.2023 in Writ A No. 8437 of 2023 and thus, the petitioner is also entitled for the same reliefs.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.

7. Considering upon submissions of counsels for the parties, it transpires that vide order dated 30.01.2024, the claim of the petitioner with respect to regularization has been rejected.

8. It emerges form the order impugned that the petitioner has not been afforded opportunity of hearing and further, procedure with respect to the provisions under section 33-C(2)(b) of the Act, 1982 has not been complied with in letter and spirit.

9. This Court has noted the fact that the petitioner has been retired after attaining the age of superannuation, as such there is no question with respect to grant of benefit of payment of salary.

10. Consequently, the impugned order dated 30.01.2024 is hereby quashed.

11. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.

12. The matter is remitted back to the Regional Level Committee headed by the Joint Director to take decision afresh, in light of the judgment and order dated 31.05.2024, passed in Writ A No. 8437 of 2023, within period of three months.

13. The petitioner and the committee of management shall also cooperate with the Regional Level Committee.

14. Consequences shall be followed.

Order Date :- 31.5.2024

Mayank